Kolkata Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ms. British Indian Trading Company. Vs. Debi Prosad Mukhopadhyay and a ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.21 dated May 25, 2010 passed by the learned Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.387 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.387 of 2008 against the defendant in respect of the premises in suit. In that suit, the defendant / petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. While the plaintiffs contended that the rent for the premises in suit was Rs.10,000/- per month and they determined the valuation of the suit accordingly, the contention of the defendant is that rent for the premises in suit is at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month only and an inflated valuation has been shown to oust the jurisdiction of the learned Civil J...
Mr. Masruddin. Vs. Sher Mohammad Qureshi and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The petitioner is the defendant in Ejectment Suit no. 126 of 2006. He received summons on 23.9.2006 and entered appearance on 16.10.2006. He did not file written statement within the time frame stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code). 2. On 8.11.2006, the petitioner applied for time to file his written statement. By order no. 3 dated 8.11.2006, the learned Civil Judge granted him time till 19.2.2007 to file the written statement. 3. The petitioner failed to prepare his written statement for absence of certain relevant documents and, accordingly, applied for further extension of time on 19.2.2007. The learned Judge-in-charge on 19.2.2007, by order no. 4, rejected the petitioners prayer. 4. In the mean while, however, the petitioner having filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, he continued to participate in the proceedings that followed without applying for recall of the order dated 19.2.2007. It is cl...
Shiw Narayan Sharma Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 3, 2011 is questioning an order of final assessment dated November 18, 2010 (at p.23) of the assessing officer of CESC. The order was made under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The second paragraph of the order of final assessment is quoted below: In the instant matter Sri Archan Kusum Majumdar, an authorised Assessing Officer, passed the Order of Provisional Assessment dated 23.10.2010. In the said Order of Provisional Assessment, the consumer was advised inter alia that he would be given a hearing by the Assessing Officer on 15.11.2010 at 10.00 a.m. in his office in terms of the provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 126 of the said Act. Unfortunately, owing to certain unforeseen exigencies, Sri Archan Kusum Majumdar, the Assessing Officer aforesaid, is no more as an Assessing Officer. It is in these compelling circumstances that I have been directed to give a hearing to the consumer on the scheduled date and time and pa...
Tilak Sarkar. Vs. the State and Another.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings relating to Ranaghat P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 dated 05.3.2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 376 of 2009 under Section 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that one Kaberi Sarkar lodged complaint with the Ranaghat P.S. alleging that she was aged 23 years and had love affairs with the petitioner (aged 25 years). The love affairs continued for about 5 years and there was promise to marry her. It has further been alleged that the petitioner cohabited with the complainant on several occasions at different places.3. It has been contended in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was an engineering student and got a job at Durgapur and he was to join by 1.7.2009 as per the offer letter issued by Pinacle Infotech Solutions. It has also been contended in the application that the petitioner got opportunity to go abr...
Sanchay Kumar SamantA. Vs. Samit Kumar Ghosal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated January 7, 2011 passed by the learned Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.200 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.200 of 2008 against the opposite party for a decree of declaration and other reliefs. The plaintiff has contended that there was an agreement for specific performance of contract in respect of a flat and a car parking space at a consideration money of Rs.32,50,000/- and out of the said consideration money and an amount of Rs.50,000/- only was paid by the petitioner to the opposite party as earnest money. The opposite party no.2 was a party to that agreement for sale but she did not sign thereon. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs at first. But, ultimately, he pray...
Ramjosh Singh. Vs. Goutam Singh
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. This application at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated February 25, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Third Court, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2007 thereby affirming the order dated March 19, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.41 of 2003.2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of this application is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.41 of 2003 against the defendant/opposite party herein for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah. The opposite party herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendant and the defendant also filed an objection to the petition for temporary injunction. That application for temporary injunction was...
Amiya Kumar Chandra Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 3, 2011 is seeking the following principal reliefs: (a) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and subordinate to enhance the Fair Rent towards the said tenanted portion and fix the same according to the present market value of the locality without giving effect the Circular dated 3rd August, 1993 as in Annexure-P13 this application; (b) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to enhance the rate of Rent towards the tenanted portion @ 30% per sq.ft. and further commending the respondent authorities asking them why the impugned order dated 16th June, 2009 shall not be quashed; 2. The District Registrar, Hooghly rented the entire first floor of a property of the petitioner in 2004. By a letter dated September 12, 2006 the District Registrar requested the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly to assess the fair rent for the premises. The Collector asses...
Uday Kumar Pal and anr.Vs. Bank of Maharastra and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 16, 2010 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent to withdraw, rescind and cancell the Notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI ACT being annexure P2, P3 and P4 to the petition and to direct the respondent No.2 to close the cash-credit account after accepting its dues and to release the mortgage of the immoveable property of the petitioner No.2 and to act according to law. 2. Annexure P2 at p.20 is a notice dated April 18, 2009 issued by the authorised officer of Bank of Maharastra under s.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In response to the notice the petitioners submitted a representation dated May 29, 2009 (at p.23). Ignoring the representation and abandoning the s.13(2) notice, the authorised officer issued a fresh s.13(2) notice dated July 6, 2009 (at p.29) and it is Anne...
Ebadat Mondal and Others. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in Sessions Trial No. 2(11) 90 sentencing thereby the appellants to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 302/149 I.P.C. The learned Judge also sentenced the appellants to suffer R.I. for one year each under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for one year each under Section 148 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Jinat Ali Mondal lodged complaint with the O.C. Habra P.S. alleging that on 01.01.1988 at about 1.30 P.M. he heard a hue and cry from the north-west corner of his house and after coming out, saw that his cousins Abu Shyam Mondal, Ebadat Mondal, Saheb Ali Mondal and Sahadat Mondal, all sons of Suklal Mondal and one Sahidul Mondal son of Abu Shyam Mondal were running with lathi, spear, chain, iron rod etc. At that time Majbur...
Gangeshwar Baitha (Ex-havilder) Vs. Union of India , Service Through t ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
SadhanKumar Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. This application has been received on transfer from the Honble High Court at Calcutta. 2. The fact as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner joined Indian Army in the month of July 1971. As he was absent without leave during the period from 11th March 1987 to 25th April 1987, the respondent no. 3 started a Summary Court Martial Proceeding against him. By order dated 6th May 1987 the petitioner was held guilty and was sentenced to be reduced in rank and dismissal from service. Said punishment order was communicated to the wife of the petitioner at her native place at Bihar. 3. Against the order dated 6th May 1987 wife of the petitioner submitted several representations with the respondent no. 3 but without any result. Ultimately the petitioner submitted a representation with the authority on 15. 1. 1991 praying for relief of pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. However, respondents by their letter dated 11th March 1991 informed the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »